beta
Text
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part regarding “D exists several graves” in the 5th, 16, and 17th, of the judgment of the first instance; (b) the part regarding “D exists,” and Article 2-b, of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance.
Except for the following changes, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
【Revised Part】
B. The Defendants’ determination on the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition by possession of the Defendants is based on the defense that the statute of limitations for the acquisition by possession was completed on June 30, 200, as the Defendants: (a) donated each of the instant land around June 1980 and occupied each of the instant land in peace and openly for twenty (20) years with the intent to own the land; and (b) accordingly, each of the above registrations of ownership transfer and ownership
It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B occupied each of the lands of this case for 20 years on the sole basis of the above facts and the statements of Nos. 1 through 7, and 15 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B occupied each of the lands of this case for 20 years. Even if Defendant B occupied each of the lands of this case for 20 years, whether the possessor’s possession is independent possession or possession without the intention of ownership should be determined externally and objectively based on the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession or all of the circumstances related to the possession, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the internal deliberation of the possessor. D is deemed to have originally been in charge of the management of each of the lands of this case, and D appears to have not donated each of the lands of this case to Defendant B. However, Defendant B completed the registration of transfer of ownership or registration of ownership ownership of each of the lands of this case based on the false guarantee document. Accordingly, as seen earlier, Defendant B was examined.